McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that’s as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that’s all they are looking for now.

This quote from the Time Magazine article is so prevalent that I can’t find the actual article. And, of course, I wonder what else he said that someone like myself would find useful. Those who want to maintain that Timothy McVeigh was a ‘Christian’ explain that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity. And that since he still believed in “a God,” he wasn’t an atheist or a secular humanist, and hence he was a Christian.

But what you see is a man who had some contact with Catholicism, and then basically turned away from it.

Obama’s mother, divorced from Obama’s father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.

And:

His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

Well, congratulations, liberals. We now have the smoking gun proof that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact a Muslim. Because we’re going to use the same childhood standard of religious affiliation on Obama that you want to use on Timothy McVeigh. And by that standard, Obama is Muslim.

The fact of the matter is that Timothy McVeigh walked away from his Catholic faith (for the record, I myself am a Baptist), and never came back to it. And rather than having anything whatsoever to do with Orthodox or organized Christianity, he had come to have his own subjective views about something he described as “a god.”

He definitely did not bomb the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah federal building in the name of Jesus, or do it as an act of his “Christian faith.” There is absolutely no reason whatsoever save anti-Christian bigotry and profound religious intolerance to suggest that he did.

That is very unlike the hundreds of videos recorded by terrorist suicide bombers who expressed their intent being directly connected to Islam.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would “improvise, adapt and overcome”, if it turned out there was an afterlife. “If I’m going to hell,” he wrote, “I’m gonna have a lot of company.”

McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, “Science is my religion.” [Michel, Lou and Herbeck, Dan. American Terrorist. pp. 142–143]

I – as one example among millions of true Christians – am a Christian. I am not an agnostic. And science is very definitely NOT my religion.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: maybe the mainstream media can start saying that McVeigh was a scientific terrorist. Or at least an agnostic terrorist. Because either of those statements would be far closer to reality than that he was a “Christian terrorist.”

There’s a little more to say.

I am going to reproduce here the entire article that, if true, proves that Timothy McVeigh merely participated in yet another of the hundreds of thousands of Islamic terror attacks across the world:

On Wednesday, a “homeless man” was arrested in the Boston suburb of Quincy, Massachusetts, on a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after allegedly striking another man with a beer bottle. His name is Hussain Hashem al-HUSSAINI, although has several other aliases and a previous arrest record.

His arrest would have likely gone unnoticed except for the tenacious investigative journalism conducted in the months and years following the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by author and investigative journalist Jayna Davis. Ms. Davis, a former reporter for KFOR-TV at the time of the bombing, identified al HUSSAINI as the “John Doe #2” in the April 19, 1995 bombing that claimed the lives of 168 people, including 22 children, three who were unborn. Her investigation is chronicled in her book, The Third Terrorist, and is an important investigative report into the actual events that took place in the months, days and weeks leading to the bombing, and perhaps even more importantly, in the years afterward.

// //

The disheveled homeless man arrested this week is at the epicenter of a plot that involves not only domestic terrorism, but the inexcusable failures and activities of the FBI that led directly to the events of September 2001. Ms. Davis documented the direct involvement of a Muslim terrorist operation involved in the 1995 bombing, and attempted to warn the FBI of additional attacks being planned. Despite impeccable documentation compiled by Ms. Davis that I personally reviewed in my capacity as an investigator, her warnings went unheeded. Six years later, the worst attack on American soil killed another 3,000 people. It is my belief that the attacks of 9/11 could have been stopped had the FBI acted upon the evidence she submitted to the FBI.

Instead, twenty-two witness affidavits she compiled and submitted to the FBI in January 1999 that, in part, connect al HUSSAINI to the events of the bombing “disappeared.” Those affidavits contain sworn statements of multiple witnesses who placed al HUSSAINI in the company of Timothy McVeigh prior to the bombing, exiting the Ryder truck that was used for the bombing, and speeding away from the area just prior to the blast. Despite solid witness statements, the FBI reportedly failed to interview al HUSSAINI.

In addition to the “hands-off” approach with al HUSSAINI, the FBI continues to refuse the release of closed circuit camera footage that exists of McVeigh and “John Doe #2” as they exited the Ryder truck in front of the Murrah Building. Why?

Leading up to, and at the time of, the Oklahoma City bombing, Hussain al HUSSAINI worked for a property management company owned by a Middle Eastern businessman who was suspected of having ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization(PLO). Six months prior to the bombing, this man hired several former Iraqi soldiers. Four years earlier, he had been convicted of federal insurance fraud.

Investigation in Boston

In mid-May 2005, I personally conducted an on-site investigation of “John Doe #2” in Boston. My confidential 30-page investigative report was submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice on 1 June 2005. The information contained in that report verified all of the relevant aspects of Ms. Davis’ claims as they pertained to Hashem al-Hussaini. The following is a redacted version of my partial investigative findings from 2005.

Hussain Hashem al-Hussaini

The primary subject of this investigation is Hussain al HUSSAINI, an Iraqi national who has been identified in sworn witness statements obtained by Ms. Davis as, in part:

Accompanying Timothy McVeigh in the Ryder truck used to deliver the bomb to the Murrah Federal Building on 19 April 1995;

Stepping out of the Ryder truck at ground zero minutes before the blast;

Speeding away from downtown Oklahoma City immediately after the detonation of the truck bomb;

Being seen in the company of Timothy McVeigh a various times and locations prior to 19 April 1995.

Hussain al HUSSAINI, a former member of the Iraqi military and Saddam’s elite Republican Guard, currently resides in Braintree, (Norfolk County) Massachusetts, a southern suburb of Boston. As well documented in The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis, al HUSSAINI came to the U.S. following the Persian Gulf War in 1991 under the guise of escaping persecution from the Iraqi dictator. Because of the significant number of refugees admitted into the U.S. and other factors, the checks-and-balances that were (or should have been) in place to verify the authenticity of those seeking entry into this county were admittedly strained or not properly implemented. Regardless of the reason, al HUSSAINI remains living in the U.S. as of the date of this report.

Subsequent to the Oklahoma City bombing, al HUSSAINI moved to Dallas, Texas, and then to Boston, Massachusetts, where he worked at Boston Logan International Airport. At that time, he resided with two Iraqi men (brothers) who provided food catering services for the commercial airlines at Boston Logan during the time leading up to and including September 11, 2001.

The two Iraqi brothers referenced above have been identified as Khalid [REDACTED] and Majed [REDACTED]. They both continue to reside in Braintree, Massachusetts. Due to their close proximity to the primary subject and their activities in Oklahoma City near the time of the 1995 bombing, this investigator has also conducted comprehensive database research and an on-site investigation and covert surveillance to update their activities as well.

Both men were observed at their residence. The activities of both men were documented, and their activities undocumented by law enforcement, according to a source contacted within the FBI. According to this source, they have “no interest” in either subject.

Left: Surveillance photograph taken by Douglas Hagmann 16 May 2005

Multiple Identities

Investigation determined that Hussain al HUSSAINI possesses a social security number issued in 1994 in the state of Massachusetts. For reasons unclear, it was reissued in Texas in 1995. Several dates of birth are associated with al HUSSAINI, all listing his month and year of birth as September 1965. He also has a lengthy list of aliases, including but not limited to Hussain Hashem Jassem Al-Hussaini, Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini, Hanan Hashim Jassem Al-Hussaini, Adnan Hashim Jassem Al-Hussaini, Salem Hashim Al-Hussaini and eleven others.

Neighbors as well as fellow employees knew him simply as “Sammy.”

At the time of this investigation, al HUSSAINI was working as a landscaper while living with his 30-year-old American girlfriend, her father, and a two-and-a-half year old daughter. He has resided at this location since 1997. Distinctive in his appearance, he has tattoo reflective of his association with the Iraqi National Guard.

Also at the time of this investigation, the two Iraqi brothers who provided food catering services at Boston Logan on 9/11 were investigated. The reports of their activities, although redacted here, were detailed in my 2005 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet, much like the warnings of Ms. Davis, nothing has taken place.

Left: The former residence of Hussain al Hussaini in a suburb of Boston

Foreboding prediction?

Confidential psychiatric records confirm that in 1997, Hussain al-Hussaini made a foreboding prediction about a future event to take place at Boston Logan International Airport, the point of origin for two of the four hijacked flights that slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

According to those records and prior to 9/11, al-Hussaini suffered anxiety so acute regarding his airport job at Boston Logan International that he checked into a psychiatric hospital to seek treatment for recurring panic attacks. When asked about the source of his trepidation, he told his therapist “if something happens there, I will be a suspect.”

Interestingly, only days after my investigation into the activities of Hussain al HUSSAINI, he “disappeared.” He left his residence of eight years and slipped quietly into the shadows of Boston, only to be found homeless and facing criminal charges this week.

Something is terribly wrong with the FBI’s handling of the 1995 bombing and the events leading up to and including the attacks of September 11, 2001. Something at the highest levels of government that continue through the present.

I’ll allow you to draw your own conclusion regarding how accurate that article is. But suffice it to say that there is far, far more evidence that Timothy McVeigh took part in a Muslim terrorist attack than there is that Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian.”

What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A lot of people are frankly pretty apolitical and frankly don’t know a lot about the two parties. I am a conservative and a Republican, but I would like to try to provide at least the accurate essence of what Democrats believe in before offering the Republican counter.

I understand that many people are not particularly involved in politics until major elections. It is not a matter of ignorance, but rather a matter of being occupied with raising children and running households. When an election rolls around, many people want to make the right decisions for themselves and for their country, but become bogged down in a morass of partisan claims and counter-claims.

The truth is, Democrats and Republicans differ on nearly everything today. But let me focus on three categories – social policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy – and try to describe a few key differences.

As George Stephanopoulos asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi virtually the same question over and over again – and as Pelosi provided one disingenuous non sequitur after another – Stephanopoulos increasingly began to look as if he had just stepped in something that really stank.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You’ve been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won’t you permit a straight up or down vote?

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We’re sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won’t have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that’s part of an energy package, we’re talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won’t work and mislead the American people as to thinking it’s going to reduce the price at the pump, I’m just not going to be a part of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can’t be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He’s talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.

PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let’s step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they’re saying is let’s have more of the same. Let’s have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don’t really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we’re saying, free the oil. Use it, don’t lose it. There’s 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they’re permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?

PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?

PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That’s what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on —

PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don’t lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We’ve talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn’t be amended with a drilling proposal.

PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It’s not to use a tactic of one — one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that’s cheaper, better for the environment —

PELOSI: They’ll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It’s simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.

PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let’s look at all of the options. Let’s compare them. And let’s see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them —

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?

PELOSI: No, what I’m saying to you is, as far as I’m concerned, unless there is something that — you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I’m not giving the gavel — I’m not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you’re not going to permit a vote on your own?

PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we’re spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?

PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don’t you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don’t want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they’re allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it’s drill, drill, drill, drill and we’re going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we’re going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.

Speaker Pelosi has engaged in every form of partisan gamesmanship in order to block Republicans from even having a debate over drilling measures. Apparently, that qualifies as “open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives” in the Nancy Pelosi dictatorship.

According to a CNNMoney.com poll, 73% of Americans favored offshore drilling as of June 2008.

In PelosiLand, that kind of demand from the American people calls for only one thing: a five week vacation.

House Republicans will be back on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives again Monday to continue the unprecedented protest that began last Friday, when dozens of Republicans joined hundreds of American citizens on the House floor to protest Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) decision to send Congress home for the rest of the summer without a vote on legislation to lower gas prices and move America toward energy independence.

President Bush doesn’t mind letting Democrats twist in the wind for the next five weeks while Americans become angrier and angrier.

Barack Obama reversed his position (what else is new?) against opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide immediate price relief on gas prices. He had earlier said that the Strategic Reserves should only be tapped in the event of an emergency. Apparently a nine point drop in the polls over the course of a single week qualifies as an emergency where crippling $4 plus gasoline does not. Obama is hoping that taking 70 million barrels from the Reserve would reduce the price just long enough to keep the oil issue at bay until after the election.

Obama does not seem to want to take part in Nancy Pelosi’s (Captain KoolAid’s) suicide pact with the environmentalist groups. He is clearly beginning to hedge his position on offshore drilling. But we can’t depend upon this serial pandering flip flopper to follow through with whatever promises he makes any more than we can depend upon Nancy Pelosi’s mental health.